NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court has barred Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court from adjudicating any criminal cases for the remainder of his tenure, citing a “shockingly erroneous” order in which he allowed criminal proceedings in what was essentially a civil dispute.
Calling it “one of the worst and most erroneous orders we have come across,” a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered a scathing critique of the judge’s reasoning and competence in handling criminal matters. The Supreme Court also ordered that Justice Kumar must now sit only on a division bench, alongside a senior High Court judge.
“A Mockery of Justice”
“The judge has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice,” the bench said. “We are at our wits’ end to understand what’s going wrong in the judiciary at the High Court level.”
The apex court raised serious concerns about the quality of judicial reasoning, questioning whether the order was the result of ignorance of law or “extraneous considerations.” It emphasized that this was not an isolated incident, noting a pattern of similar “unpardonable” orders from Justice Kumar.
Background of the Case
The matter involved a commercial dispute between two businessmen. One had delivered goods worth ₹52.34 lakh and received ₹47.75 lakh, but when the remaining amount was not paid, he lodged a criminal complaint. The accused party moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that the issue was purely civil in nature.
However, Justice Kumar allowed the criminal proceedings to continue, stating that pursuing a civil case would impose further financial hardship on the complainant and delay justice. “It would seem like good money chasing bad money,” the judge wrote, adding that directing the matter to civil court would amount to a travesty of justice.
Supreme Court’s Response
The Supreme Court expressed disbelief at this rationale. “Is it the understanding of the High Court that if the accused is convicted, the trial court will award the balance amount?” the bench asked. “These observations are shocking. It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read such reasoning.”
The apex court stressed the long-established legal principle that civil disputes cannot be pursued through criminal proceedings, as it constitutes an abuse of the legal process.
Order Quashed, Judge Reassigned
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order and directed that the case be reconsidered by another judge.
In its directive to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court said:
“The present criminal determination must be withdrawn from the judge concerned immediately. He shall not be assigned any criminal matters going forward. If he is to preside as a single judge, he must not be given any criminal jurisdiction.”
This is the first time in judicial history that a sitting High Court judge has been formally barred by the Supreme Court from handling an entire category of cases—a move reflecting the gravity of the court’s concerns.
